Don't Get Training

[AZAK]

pax

Laws requiring training before allowing people to concealed carry are sometimes politically expedient, but they aren't based on any rational measure.

This statement is greatly disturbing to me on a multitude of levels. But, as you say,

Now, setting that firmly aside.

I note a great deal of conviction in your words.

How much training YOU should receive thus isn't really about the laws. It's about YOUR personal situation and YOUR personal sense of morals / ethics / duty.

I wonder if you share the same sense of moral obligation in regard to training that Glenn E. Meyer states:

The issue for me is that you have the moral responsibility not to do harm through incompetence when you act in an environment that contains more people than you!

A moral responsibility to not be incompetent. How is this being defined? As has been brought up, many "shooters" with little or no training or "old timers", who may eschew such suggestions as they "need" additional training, may be the ones who could really use the training; the incompetent ones?

How do we determine exactly when "competence" is achieved? Is there a standard that needs to be met?

In my mind it is one thing to state that we all can benefit from training, and may want to take our responsibilities as gun owners and carriers very seriously and then outlining how additional training could help in a worst case scenario; especially in light of the possibility of injuring or possibly killing an innocent person. (And if that is what you are advocating here, and I have misunderstood your intentions in any way, I apologize for my lack of understanding.)

It is quite another to state a moral obligation to obtain such training; especially with a determined standard, worse yet with a "as of yet to be determined standard" or "when I say so". I find this mindset inseparable from the concept of state and/or federal regulation and at odds with an inalienable right.

 

[MLeake]

AZAK...

... I think Pax has pretty clearly stated that the moral responsibility is an internal, personal thing, and not something she feels should be regulated.

The truly clueless out there, who probably need the most training, will be the least likely to voluntarily seek it, but Pax has said that even for them, statistics don't bear out nor justify state regulation.

So I'm not clear on why you are arguing with her about this, unless you feel she shouldn't state an opinion that there is a moral and ethical reason why individuals should feel a need, as responsible gun owners and carriers, to ensure they are (at least in their own minds) doing what they can in order to be safe and proficient.

I don't think too many people here would disagree with her viewpoint on that, which I interpret to be:

1) The State should not regulate a basic right, but

2) Individuals should feel an internal, moral compass call to do what they can to be safe, proficient shooters / weapon handlers.

 

[smince]

Like mordis in the previous posts, I had zero access to professional training for a long time. And I just couldn't afford the trip to Gunsite or T.R. So I made do with DVD's and things like PDTV and IDPA when available.

And I learned a lot from this type of media. Would I have been able to handle a fight at 7-10 yds? Maybe. What if my fight was at 30+ yds in the mall? Again, maybe. Until I took some actual hands-on training with a professional, I didn't know what all I really didn't know.

I sought out higher training because I don't know what my fight will be when it comes to me. It may be in-your-face distance or it may be farther out.

I'm fortunate enough now to have three very good trainers in less than 100 miles from me, and have taken classes from traveling instructors who were hosted locally.

There is quite a bit you just won't be able to get from DVD's or TV.

 

[BlueTrain]

The title of this thread is mildly provocative, isn't it? Perhaps that was intended, given as how it has generated several pages of comments.

I have to take issue with the phrase "handing over political power to the government." That suggests "the people" (us) are giving up something to something of a foreign entity. It should not be seen in that light. Government is created by the citizens and such power as it has might be called political power, though it has other powers the citizens never had individually. Yet the citizens retain certain powers like voting, though some choose not exercise those powers. If the government has no political (or other) powers, there is no effective government.

 

[MLeake]

In general, BlueTrain, you are right...

... the government, good or ill, is us by extension.

Still, when it comes to RKBA, the right of the people shall not be abridged; that doesn't really allow much leeway for government regulation, at least, not in my book.

 

[BlueTrain]

Nobody said it was perfect but "regulated" appears in the first line before it says "shall not be infringed." Funny how that ended up being written. The idea behind that part was an attempt to prevent private armies, or private militias, if you will.

 

[Glenn E. Meyer]

1) The State should not regulate a basic right, but

2) Individuals should feel an internal, moral compass call to do what they can to be safe, proficient shooters / weapon handlers.

MLeake nailed Kathy's and my view. Thanks.

If you don't want to take this step in #2, you are not stepping up to the moral batter's box and not helping the RKBA. You have the same moral obligation to be informed when you vote. But there is not legal requirement not to be an ignoramus.

The sophistry of some is not impressive.

 

[psyfly]

Pardon for slightly off-topic but;

"..."regulated" appears in the first line before it says "shall not be infringed.,,"

Before you settle completely on a definition for 'regulated' in its constitutional usage, research von Clausewitz' contribution(s) to the formation of the Continental Army.

W

 

[BlueTrain]

I prefer to take George Mason's viewpoint on the matter. Von Clausewitz was born in 1780.

 

[psyfly]

Thank you, BT.

I really hate it when I find I trust the wrong sources when I'm trying to learn something.

Best,

Will

 

[BlueTrain]

You were probably thinking of Baron Von Steuben, who really introduced the idea of military discipline to the Continental Army. But don't worry. I make many mistakes myself, including in spelling, which others here have kindly brought to my attention.

I take special interest in the thinking of George Mason, who was a local boy, and who was also one of my wife's direct ancestors. George Mason's daughter or granddaughter married Samuel Cooper, later general and adjutant general of the Confederate Army (although he was from New York). He was my wife's grandmother's grandfather. However, Paris Hilton is also a direct descendent of George Mason, so I guess it really isn't all that special a thing.

I've been married to this same woman for over 30 years and I still don't have all the relations down pat.

Anyway, central to George Mason's thinking on this subject was that the militia was to be subject to the government and entirely so. I don't know exactly what caused him to be worried about private armies, as he put it, but lately there seems to be some good cause. All this business about well regulated meaning to be a good shot is so much fantasy and nonsense. As this topic has discussed, your right to own a firearm is not dependent on your being a good shot--or a big shot.

 

[markj]

Quote:
Originally Posted by markj
...Know the permit laws (classroom) be able to load aim and shoot 7 to 10 yards...

It's an open question whether that alone is even sufficient.

I belive it is all a person needs to do to be able to get a permit to carry concealed. Like driving, you pass a test (written) then go out and do simple driving tasks like turn, park etc. These simple things are needed to drive a car. But if that person wants to race on a sanctioned track he has to take a test (written) and demonstrate he can handle the speed he wants to race at.

So to put this in perspective, the items I outlines should be enough, if a person wants to go further, he can but to say it is needed by all, well that isnt right at all.

To put another blockade in the way of people getting the permit to carry isnt being helpful to them as there are enough hoops to jump thru now.

I have said before I was at a store awhile ago, lady in front of me was looking for her wallet in her purse, she pulls out a hog leg, puts it back then rummages thru till she finds her cash. She was old, like 65 old, do you think she should have to take these courses to have that gun?

This isnt lets go out and get some bad guys, this is I have this thing here in case someone trys to take what is mine or do me harm. Period. nothing else, I feel some have this confused.

Be careful.

 

[Frank Ettin]

...Know the permit laws (classroom) be able to load aim and shoot 7 to 10 yards...

It's an open question whether that alone is even sufficient.

I belive it is all a person needs to do to be able to get a permit to carry concealed.

The question isn't whether that's all one needs to do to get a carry permit. The question is whether it's all one needs to be able to do to be reasonably comfortable that he (or she) will be able to effectively use a gun for self defense.

You may think so. If you do (1) I disagree; and (2) many people with guns apparently can't even meet that minimal qualification.

 

[AZAK]

BlueTrain states:

I have to take issue with the phrase "handing over political power to the government." That suggests "the people" (us) are giving up something to something of a foreign entity. It should not be seen in that light. Government is created by the citizens and such power as it has might be called political power, though it has other powers the citizens never had individually.

There can be no "political power" for the government without the citizens relinquishing some of theirs. This is part of the price that citizens pay to have this form of representation. At least in a Republic as opposed to a Democracy; our country was founded as a Republic not a Democracy.

And continues:

Yet the citizens retain certain powers like voting, though some choose not exercise those powers. If the government has no political (or other) powers, there is no effective government

And as to voting, yes we can vote for a representative who may or may not act according to the "one man one vote" mentality of some of his/her constituency. An example of how our country is not a Democracy is the Electoral College. Or the fact that we as individual citizens do not get to vote on many, many issues; think about Congress, we only have our representatives who get to vote directly. And there are different ways that a government may dissolve from without or within.

Glenn E. Meyer states:

MLeake nailed Kathy's and my view. Thanks.

If you don't want to take this step in #2, you are not stepping up to the moral batter's box and not helping the RKBA. You have the same moral obligation to be informed when you vote. But there is not legal requirement not to be an ignoramus.

The sophistry of some is not impressive.

pax states:

If you are the sort of person who would act to save the lives of your family members, you owe it to them and to yourself to get as much training as you can afford.

I personally do not see it this way. The fact that literally thousands upon thousands of Americans have purchased firearms in the last several years, helps support the RKBA; even if they never take the gun out of the case, never load it, or even buy rounds for it, or run a round through it. They can bury their guns, throw away the map, and they have still supported the RKBA.

The minute that someone states that there "should" be a "moral obligation" to obtain training, they have opened Pandora's box. They have created an "Us" and "Them" mentality. "Us" being morally superior, "Them" being those who have just not got it right. That person is attempting to set a standard, pronounced or not, that will be seen as such, a standard. And believing that the governing bodies will not notice if a "professional standard" has been suggested and possibly even established in some areas, helping to open the door for state/federal regulation, is a bit optimistic in my opinion.

And if we look at the negative of pax's statement, we see that if I do not spend as much as I can afford on firearm training, I am not the type of person who would act to save the lives of my family members; or another way of looking at it is that I am not moral enough.

Some arguments are lost the second an inch is given; inalienable is not compromisable. In my opinion, this is such an argument.

Glenn E. Meyer you call, "sophistry". I call what I am reading in this thread as differing points of view.

Please note: again, there has not yet been anyone on this thread who has argued that training is negative. And again, I myself value training, and additional training. However, I do not believe that myself or anyone else "must" feel "morally obligated" to pursue training.

 

[mavracer]

Some arguments are lost the second an inch is given; inalienable is not compromisable.

You have the inalienable right to break the law.Do you then beleve viloent felons should retain their right to keep and bear arms?

However, I do not believe that myself or anyone else "must" feel "morally obligated" to pursue training.

You have a moral obligation to be responsible.

 

[alloy]

Sad to say but AZAK has me convinced as far as moral obligations are concerned. But just in case he's wrong, you all have a moral obligation to stop eating meat, zeroscape the lawn, and sign up for ongoing advanced auto driving courses.
How bout my practice regimen, how many trips per week to the practice range and how many Rhodesians are required to meet obligations? Dry fire time? Is that based on your experiences or whose?
The thread is OK it doesn't bother me at all, but the push to the nth degree is something else. Makes sense to get some training.

 

[spacecoast]

I believe you have a moral obligation to understand your limits and do your best not to endanger the lives of innocents while preserving your own life and those of your dependents. If you want to obtain training to expand those limits so that you will be ready and able to handle more complex situations then that is all good.

 

[mavracer]

How bout my practice regimen, how many trips per week to the practice range and how many Rhodesians are required to meet obligations? Dry fire time? Is that based on your experiences or whose?

I beleve that is the exact point Kathy is trying to make.your practice and training should be decided by your moral compass.If your reasonably comfortable with your training and practice levels then OK.

however if you think your skill set is lacking and would likely put the public at large in peril and you refuse to train/practice because you don't care or your oppositional defiant disorder won't allow you to because so and so said it was a good idea then I beleve your moral compass is in dire need of adjustment.

Nobody here is trying to set a bar for your level of training or proficiency.
I'd suggest you do it yourself.

 

[smince]

even if they never take the gun out of the case, never load it, or even buy rounds for it, or run a round through it. They can bury their guns, throw away the map, and they have still supported the RKBA.

"Keeping" perhaps, but not "Bearing"

 

[Frank Ettin]

So, AZAK, if I understand you, it is not "politically correct" for some of us to suggest that it would be a conscientious and responsible thing for a gun owner to seek out training, because it may appear elitist and may have undesirable political consequences.

...They have created an "Us" and "Them" mentality. "Us" being morally superior, "Them" being those who have just not got it right. That person is attempting to set a standard, pronounced or not, that will be seen as such, a standard. And believing that the governing bodies will not notice if a "professional standard" has been suggested and possibly even established in some areas, helping to open the door for state/federal regulation,...

At the same time, you acknowledge that training is a desirable thing.

...there has not yet been anyone on this thread who has argued that training is negative. And again, I myself value training, and additional training....

In any case, I do believe that it is a good and responsible thing for a gun owner to seek out training and strive to be safe and competent with his gun. I also think that a responsible person makes an effort to be a competent and safe driver and also strives to be good at his job. It seems to me that real life has a way of "setting standards" for us all. I guess I'm just not politically correct.